Should Cameron apologise?

[Hesther]

You do like selective posting, and making odd conclusions don't you?

 

Where is the rest of the post I wrote? Didn't fit your headlining agenda?

 

 

-

 

I'll spell it out. If we [as posters on a local forum] know all the details of what the military plan is, then there is a fair chance that so called IS also know it. Not because SF is a massive thing, but because we are all watching the news.

 

They'll be popping the [alcohol free] champagne when they see the obvious result.

 

Do you think they've been in the Mosque today?, or watching the Global news, and in particular, the BBC?

 

So far, the global community has given them every single thing that they want.

 

headlining agenda? What are you on about?

 

Something you wrote reminded me exactly of the public's response to Blair's warmongering. I commented on it.

 

I didn't feel the need to re post all of your lengthy post because I didn't have much of an issue with anything else you stated, so didn't need feel the need to respond to the rest of it, and re posting posts of length when you don't need to is not great form.

 

What is your problem?

[*_ash_*]

Anna, you still haven't answered any posts about what you think should happen and constantly revert back to 'hate torys' mode.

 

However, when I read this bit, it just reminded me of something...

 

Once we're in over our heads (and that won't be long considering how the Tories have cut our armed services,) Cameron will show his true measure by not having a clue how to get us out of it.

 

[Anna B]

We are at war with these lunatics, like it or not. Taking a backward stance will not work and still make us vulnerable to attacks.

Now is the time to take this threat head on and see what resolve they have in a proper fight. No doubt there will be repercussions, but whose to say there wouldn't be anyway.

 

A Terrorist attack does not constitute a war. However dropping bombs on someone else's country probably does, so in fact we are declaring war on them. How long will it be before we are up against Putin?

 

When we're all hiding under the stairs with our windows whitewashed, we might like to reflect on how we all ended up paying for Cameron's hubris.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Anna B

[Quik]

A Terrorist attack does not constitute a war. However dropping bombs on someone else's country probably does, so in fact we are declaring war on them. How long will it be before we are up against Putin?

 

Its happening now so whining about it is pointless even if we disagree. The izzys have had airspace intel with russia for months, we definately do.

 

Time to put aside differences and hope like hell we destroy these isis animals.

[999tigger]

A Terrorist attack does not constitute a war. However dropping bombs on someone else's country probably does, so in fact we are declaring war on them. How long will it be before we are up against Putin?

 

We will all end up paying for Cameron's hubris.

 

We dont have to declare war on them although we can attack them in retaliation as self defence. We also have UN resolution 2249 to use "all necessary measures" to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to eradicate the safe haven established by IS in significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

 

Why are we going to be up against Putin. he wants rid of them as well.

[Anna B]

Its happening now so whining about it is pointless even if we disagree. The izzys have had airspace intel with russia for months, we definately do.

 

Time to put aside differences and hope like hell we destroy these isis animals.

 

I don't think you get it. Getting rid of Isis is the relatively easy bit. What comes after is the problem. We will then have no choice but to get involved in the battle to remove Assad. Putin wants him to stay. That's the problem.

[999tigger]

I don't think you get it. Getting rid of Isis is the relatively easy bit. What comes after is the problem. We will then have no choice but to get involved in the battle to remove Assad. Putin wants him to stay. That's the problem.

 

So they will have to sort soemthing out. Its no soemthing either Russia or America are willing to go to war with each other over.

[Anna B]

So they will have to sort soemthing out. Its no soemthing either Russia or America are willing to go to war with each other over.

 

Did you say it's not something Russia or America are willing to go to war over?

 

I so sincerely hope you are right.

 

But we are already at war over it, it's where all this started. Us arming the rebels who turned into Isis, Putin backing Assad. But this conflagration is so complex that it is eventually going to be hard to separate out dealing with Isis from dealing with the Assad regime.

 

The whole area is like a powder keg already, with shifting loyalties and alliances. Add in the various hidden agendas, bluffs, hubris and propaganda, and it's easy to see how easily dangerous mistakes can be made.

 

A wrong move could be disastrous; the start of Obama's 'unexpected consequences.'

Edited December 3, 2015 by Anna B

[Eric Arthur]

This is a disputed claim and in my opinion almost certainly untrue.

 

It was made by a Labour MP who was previously an officer in the Parachute Regiment commanding Iraqi troops in Iraq. What's your source that says he's incorrect?

 

I hope that we'll agree that getting into absolutes like zero casualties is a mugs game that doesn't add to the discussion so I'm prepared to take almost zero as the same difference. If your source can come up with hundreds of civilian casualties that would be a different thing.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2015 at 07:25 ----------

 

Also on Newsnight: American newspapers know nothing of the debate, and are reporting this simply as 'Britain wanting to still be sitting at the top table.' In other words it's political posturing. David Cameron is so puffed up with self importance that I'd have to agree with that. Let's face it, our bombers (is it just two?) are not going to make much difference to the actual conflict.

 

My copy of the New York Times must be different to the one that Newsnight are using. The other newspapers of record are reporting it too.

 

The vote, after months of wrangling, hand-wringing and a daylong parliamentary debate, underscored the concerted efforts of Prime Minister David Cameron, whose Conservative Party has a majority in Parliament, to restore Britain’s reputation as a serious global actor.

 

I'll bet that Newsnight did not mention this from the same NYT article. The others also carry the news of Corbyn's shambles so in that respect Jeremy is making an international impact.

 

The run-up to the vote also amounted to a low point for Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the opposition Labour Party. While Mr. Corbyn opposes British military action over Syria, some of Labour’s senior figures, including the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs, Hilary Benn, supported it, and Mr. Corbyn was forced to allow his lawmakers to vote freely on the issue in an effort to avoid a intraparty clash amid threatened resignations.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[Halibut]

It was made by a Labour MP who was previously an officer in the Parachute Regiment commanding Iraqi troops in Iraq. What's your source that says he's incorrect?

 

 

According to Iraq Body Count it's as many as 369 between January and July this year, as reported in the Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-strikes-cameron-claims-there-have-been-no-reports-of-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-since-british-a6757351.html